Instrument Landing Minimums are ABSOLUTE!!!!!

[3WE]

In the discussion over the bad landing, it was stated how absolute that weather minimums were.

In thinking about that it hit me that in spite of clear minimums, there is a HUGE HUGE HUGE range of safety that these minimums supply.

200 feet and 1/2 mile is incredibly common for Category I ILS approaches.

But, who's flying? I only have 10 hours of instrument time and one ILS (under the hood) to my name. I found it tough to keep the airplane dead on course, check the plate, tune the ILS, check the morse code, change to tower frequncy, watch the altitude, watch everything else...

Then I watched the Jetstream crew do one (no autopilot either!)....Very cool- one dude flew the plane, the other dude messed with radios (and watched the needles and altitude too- just for safety)....then it hit me HUGELY: their approach was TONS safer than mine- and not simply because they had a lot of practice. Four eyeballs and two brains make a geometric, not linear, improvement in safety. (Not that they can't collectively CFIT, etc either, but they beat the hell out of one person in a high workload, critical environment.)

And that's not all- is it true concrete 200 and 1/2 in some gentle, low fog, or is it blowing snow and those pesky gusty crosswinds? Or is it torrential rain?

Are you doing the ILS at a remote airport- or is it a major terminal with plane after plane on a 3-min interval to report the prescense, or abscense of wind shears?

Is there ice?

Flat terrain or mountanous?

Let's get back to pilot training- in spite of hard limits- some airlines will limit lower hour pilots to higher minimums (What??? It's not absolute???). And- no question whatsoever - a low time instrument pilot in a light plane without an autopilot is way way way way way way way way more dangerous than two gillion-hour pilots in a top-of-the-line airliner.

Bottom line- just because there are clear restrictions on weather with respect to ceiling and visiblity- it actually does very little to control the level of safety.

[bob m]

What is legal is not necessarily safe!

[Evan]

Originally Posted by bob m

What is legal is not necessarily safe!

But what is illegal is necessarily unsafe.

That's the point...

[MCM]

Incorrect Evan.

There are plenty of things that are illegal and yet perfectly safe.

Not all aviation regulations are safety related, and many aviation regulations are in place for "lowest common denominator".

[Evan]

Originally Posted by MCM

Incorrect Evan.

There are plenty of things that are illegal and yet perfectly safe.

Not all aviation regulations are safety related, and many aviation regulations are in place for "lowest common denominator".

I meant ILS minimums - the topic of the thread...

Anyway, until they can find a way to get the "lowest common denominator" out of the cockpit, this is what we must require.

[TeeVee]

Originally Posted by Evan

I meant ILS minimums - the topic of the thread...

Anyway, until they can find a way to get the "lowest common denominator" out of the cockpit, this is what we must require.

so, you are advocating 100% automation after all. FINALLY THE TRUTH COMES OUT. the rest is meaningless.

oh and nice of you to consider all the guys and gals on here that are professional pilots to be "the lowest common denominator." i'm sure they appreciate it!

[Spectator]

OT @3WE - I just received an email from ITS Support... I uses red text, black text, capitals, regular case, bold and underline in various combinations. This ITS is for International Trade Services, but it did make me smile.

[MCM]

I meant ILS minimums - the topic of the thread...
Anyway, until they can find a way to get the "lowest common denominator" out of the cockpit, this is what we must require.

Its not necessarily for the human lowest common denominator.

I'll expand a little on the Cat I/II/III example.

For a CAT III approach, the airport requires a certain amount of approach lighting to be operative. If that approach lighting is out, the CAT III approach is not available.

Now, thats fine, except when you consider that my approved minima at that airport might be say 0' and 100m visibility (for example). At the minima, I may not be required to see anything - or maybe 1 centreline light. In CAT III weather, at those minimas, I will not see anything to do with the approach lighting at all. However, some CAT III operators will have higher minimas. These minimas may put the approach "visual" point at a position that you see approach lights.

Because of this, the CAT III approach will not be available, and will revert to say CAT I. Is it really a safety issue for me, flying to 0' and 100m, to fly below the minima on the day? Or is it a "one size fits all" approach to make it easier?

Just one example of why there is no definitive "flying below minimas is unsafe"... because, like always in aviation, there are exceptions...

[Evan]

Originally Posted by MCM

Just one example of why there is no definitive "flying below minimas is unsafe"... because, like always in aviation, there are exceptions...

But is it fair to say that flying below YOUR minima is unsafe? I mean, to get to 0 visibility and 100ft, you had to meet a lot of requirements that ensure you can safely fly there, right? So it is safe for you to go there but if another pilot has minima of 100ft and 650ft, they can't safely descend to your minima, i.e. they can't safely descend below THEIR minima. So everybody sticks to the rules, nobody ends up in the trees...

[Peter Kesternich]

Originally Posted by Evan

(...) So everybody sticks to the rules, nobody ends up in the trees...

Ideally, that's the way it goes...

[MCM]

But on that day, the minima is CAT I minima. No-one can descend below that. I can have CAT III equipment, the critical areas can be protected, all the good stuff in place - but to do the approach would be illegal, but not unsafe.

So what I'm saying is that while it it would not be unsafe for me to fly to a CAT III minima, it is illegal because the "CAT III" required lighting isn't available (even though, for my approach, I'm not going to see any of it anyway).

We differentiate between CAT I, II and III, but within those groups the approach is either available, or unavailable. They do not say "CAT IIIb approach approved, CAT IIIa not available". It would get far too complicated.

Just an example of where we do things, by necessity, that make life "simple" but breaking them wouldn't necessarily be unsafe.

Obviously you wouldn't break them though!